Sri.Parmeshwar S/O Basawanthrao ... vs Smt.Manjula W/O Shivakumar And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5793 Kant

                           1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

              MFA No.201044/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:

SRI. PARMESHWAR
S/O BASAWATHRAO MALIPATIL,
AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.5-695,
ROZA (K), GULBARGA.
                                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     SMT. MANJULA W/O
       SHIVAKUMAR,
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
       OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.
       KA-51/M-4000, R/O H.NO.3/2/180 E/2/834,
       ADARSHA NAGAR, BILGUNDI LAYOUT,
       GULBARGA.

2.     THE MANAGER,
       RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       ASIAN PLAZA, MAIN ROAD,
       NEAR SARDAR VALLABHAI
       PATEL CHOWK, GULBARGA.
                                ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.S.KALBURGI, ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT);
    V/O DTD. 01.02.2016 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)
                                 2




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2014 PASSED IN
MVC No.574/2012 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the petitioner under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')

aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.02.2014

passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal at Gulbarga (for short

hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC

No.574/2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Claims

Tribunal. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents

are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are as

under:

On 08.01.2012 the petitioner and his friend i.e.,

Santosh were going to Basaveshwara Hospital on

motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/Y-484. When they

were proceeding on the side of Sedam Ring Road

opposite to Bilgundi Petrol Bunk, at that time one

Travera car bearing No.KA-51/M-4000 was driven in a

high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to

the motorcycle of the claimant, due to which, the

petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The

petitioner spent huge amount for medial treatment. It is

also contended that the petitioner suffered the

permanent disability. Hence, the claimant filed claim

petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking

compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the

road traffic accident.

4. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition with

regard to age, occupation, income and nature of the

accident of the petitioner. However, it is contended that

the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid

and effective driving licence as on the date of accident

and also violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

Hence, on these grounds, prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of

the parties framed the issues:

6. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and

examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked

the documents as Exs.P1 to P22. The respondents have

not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence

and considering the material on record, allowed the

claim petition in part and awarded compensation of

Rs.3,18,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Further held that the respondents No.2 is directed to

deposit the compensation amount.

8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this

appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant

and none appears for respondent No.2.

10. The learned counsel for the claimant submits

that the claimant met with an accident and suffered a

permanent disability. In order to establish that he has

suffered a permanent disability, the petitioner has

examined the doctor as P.W.3, who has deposed that he

has examined the petitioner and on examination he has

issued a disability certificated and marked as Ex.P-19.

P.W.3 is not a treated doctor and he has opined that he

has assessed the disability of 35% to the whole body of

the petitioner. Ex.P-6 - wound certificate discloses that

the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. It is the

case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as

an Accountant appointed with P.W.2 since for three

years. In order to establish that he was working as an

Accountant with P.W.2, wherein P.W.2 has deposed that

the claimant was working as Accountant since from

three years and he was paid a salary of Rs.12,000/- per

month before the accident and after the accident, he

was terminated from the job. P.W.2 in support of his

evidence has not produced any records to show that the

petitioner was working with P.W.2. Further he submits

that the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation

under all the heads. Hence, he submits that the appeal

may be allowed and the compensation may be

enhanced.

11. I have perused the records and considered

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner. The point that arises for consideration is with

regard to quantum of compensation.

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner met

with an accident and sustained grievous injuries in the

road traffic accident. In order to prove the accident, the

claimant has produced the copy of charge sheet and

marked as Ex.P-2. Ex.P-2 discloses that the accident

was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is

concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the

claimant was working as an Accountant and earning

Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner has not tendered

any evidence in regard to income proof. In the absence

of income, the income is taken as per the chart provided

by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the

notional income will have to be taken into consideration.

In terms of the chart, for the accident of the year 2012,

the income of the petitioner will have to be taken at

Rs.6,500/- as against Rs.4,500/- per month taken by

the Tribunal. Considering the evidence of P.W.3 it is

opined that the petitioner has suffered permanent

disability of 35% to the whole body. P.W.2 deposed that

the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability of

35%, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability at

15% which is on the lower side. This Court considering

the evidence of P.W.2 and medical records produced,

this Court enhanced disability of 18% to the whole body.

Taking into account the age of the petitioner which was

35 years at the time of accident, multiplier of '16' has to

be adopted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC

121. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to

compensation towards loss of future income at

Rs.2,24,640/- (Rs.6,500/- X 12 X 16 X 18/100).

14. Considering the nature of the injuries

sustained by the petitioner, the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is re-

assessed in the following manner:

Compensation awarded in Rs.

          Particulars
                                 By the       By this
                                Tribunal       Court
Loss of future income           1,29,600/-   2,24,640/-
Pain and sufferings               15,000/-     30,000/-
Loss of medical expenses        1,52,378/-   1,52,378/-
Loss of earning during
                                      5,550/-       19,500/-
laid up period
Died,        nourishment,
attendance            and            15,000/-         20,000/-
conveyance charges
Loss of amenities                     -               25,000/-
Total                             3,18,000/-        4,71,518/
Enhanced by this Court                             1,53,518/-

15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of 1,53,518/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from date of the receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

iv. The tribunal is directed to release the enhanced compensation amount with interest in favour of the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE ssb